Originally Posted by
PeteHski
If that were true then bicycle (and any other technical product) development would be a lot more random than it actually is. Individuals of a certain age might well have a sentimental preference for products of a specific era, but the newer products are objectively better. From a nostalgic point of view I do "value" iconic bikes from the 1970s an 80s (TI Raleigh for example), but I'm not going to pretend their outdated tech is on a par with their modern equivalents. Some people seem to live in denial when it comes to technological progress.
Disc brakes in general simply function better than rim brakes and that's why rim brakes are becoming obsolete. It has nothing to do with "Big bike" marketing. It's just simple engineering evolution.
So what comes after disc brakes in this evolutionary process? Is there a known wheel braking mechanism inherently better than the hydraulic disc brake and caliper? Based on what we see in the automotive industry, I would say not at this point. Certainly not in mainstream production anyway.
Not to belabor the point (but I guess I am), but I think the worship of science as objective is misplaced. One of the most famous books on the theory of science by Thomas Kuhn is
The Structure of Scientific Revolutons. Here's a description of his argument:
"the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing and irreconcilable accounts of reality. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely wholly upon "objectivity" alone. Science must account for subjective perspectives as well, since all objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon the subjective conditioning/worldview of its researchers and participants."
So our idea of what is objectively valuable is occasioned by our, subjective, world view. I think I would argue that our world view includes the idea that change is progress, that complexity is better than simplicity, that world history is a linear road of everything getting better. These are subjective notions that seem like objective truth to those steeped in our world view.
In the world of cycling, the latest invention is the e-bike. Is that objective progress that everyone should now embrace, just like disc brakes? What if they invent a way to shift gears with a simple mental act with no physical movement; would that be objective progress with all previous gear-shifting mechanisms relegated to the category of nostalgia? To claim that the latest invention is objectively better seems like a rhetorical way to impose one's values on everyone else. To say that everyone else is motivated merely by nostalgia is patronizing.